gameplay by Raskholnikovgraphics by pamoacode by ender 516A command room map for government officials dealing with the issue of oil supplies, transit and geopolitical rivalries connected with oil.A complex CC map which anyone who loves large maps with a variety of options and who are interested in nowadays questions will be eager to play.

> SPECIAL ATTACKSCapitals__one-way attack US Fleets or NSAMetropolises__attack each otherUS Fleets revert to 4 neutral__bombard in their range__any Terrorist, Tanker or RefineryNSA revert to 6 neutral__bombard any MetropolisTerrorists__attack each other__bombard Refineries in a range of twoUprisings__one-way attack Al-MahdiAl-Mahdi__one-way attacks Cairo or Terrorists

> BONUSESRegions + 3 regardless of number heldCapitals + 1Metropolises + 1 auto-deployUprisings - 1 each turnTerrorists if held with Al-Mahdi__+ 2 eachRefineries if held with a Capital__+ 4 for first eight then +2 for every fourTankers if held with a Capital__+ 3 for first six then + 2 for every threeKashmir + 2 if held with__New Delhi, Islamabad or BeijingArunchal + 1 if held with__New Delhi or Beijing

Well. At first sight this looks interesting. I would recommend doing a draft of the small version with 888:s to ensure everything will fit properly. You don't want to run into the same problems you had with the napoleon map...

How exactly the largest oil producing nation in the world ended as non-playable on this map is beyond me. I'm of course talking about Saudi Arabia.

The graphics are pretty rough on the eyes at this point, but I expect that will improve as Pomoa is quite proven.

I think its overcomplicated though the core idea is pretty good.

I think you should super simplify the Baltic/Caspian sea things.

You also need to get rid of the refinery connection lines. Perhaps let the refineries sit on their territories. You can replicate the pipline dynamic with a sort of hold 3 refineries for +2, hold 5 for +4, ect.

Industrial Helix wrote:How exactly the largest oil producing nation in the world ended as non-playable on this map is beyond me. I'm of course talking about Saudi Arabia.

Of course it is in play. It will look better and clearer on the first draft Pamoa will post

The graphics are pretty rough on the eyes at this point, but I expect that will improve as Pomoa is quite proven.

Indeed!

I think its overcomplicated though the core idea is pretty good.

Yes, we will simplify some things. In particular, tankers will not have any conection lines but be connected with their territories.

I think you should super simplify the Baltic/Caspian sea things.

Yes, that will be done. In addition, the Caucasus / Caspian area will have an enlarged window, for more clarity.

You also need to get rid of the refinery connection lines. Perhaps let the refineries sit on their territories. You can replicate the pipline dynamic with a sort of hold 3 refineries for +2, hold 5 for +4, ect. I'm not sure I want to get rid of pipelines at this early point, since the map's purpose is to show the connections between refineries, pipelines and tankers. We'll post the first version and then consider all suggestions

I'll be keeping an eye on this one.

Thanks for your kind comments - much appreciated. Look forward to your continuing input and advice on this one.

GSP JR wrote:This has an interesting concept going for it. I like the idea, and would like to see what can be done to it.

On the strategy, does holding a state mean the capital or the entire state? Just wanted to clarify that.

We are reviewing this; it will be clearer in the up-coming draft.

Could you find a way to add in another fleet and have limits to the reach of the fleets. Maybe have one stationed in the Gulf, since the US typically has a fleet stationed in that area?

We have already; the US 5th Fleet will be stationed in the Indian Ocean just at the entrance of the Gulf. US fleets will be conquerable by one-way attacks from any capitals and, in turn, will be able to attack all tankers, refineries and terrorists. They will revert to plus 3 neutral at the end of each round.

If you guys like this, let's move it to Gameplay. I'm aware there's a lot of work to do there. This is just a first draft and we intend to work on gameplay quite a lot. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

In all seriousness though, it looks real nice. You'll have to work on clarity - there's lots of stuff going on on the map, I'm not sure if that's a bit too much... I'm thinking you might have an easier ride through the foundry if you would just simplify the map somewhat. But then again Raskholnikov has never been known to do things the easy way...

Graphically, I have very mixed feelings about this. I like the blue colour scheme and the industrial look. They look nice. But at the same time it kinda makes everything blend together so it's a bit hard to find anything on the map... I realize this is just a first draft, but I thought this would give you something to work on when you advance to later forums.

Another criticism is, that the insets are a bit hard to place on the map - at least for those who don't know the geography. When you use insets, they should be used so that you can easily see which part of the map the inset represents, and this is going to need some work.

n all seriousness though, it looks real nice. You'll have to work on clarity - there's lots of stuff going on on the map, I'm not sure if that's a bit too much... I'm thinking you might have an easier ride through the foundry if you would just simplify the map somewhat. But then again Raskholnikov has never been known to do things the easy way...

Well we do need to work on gameplay so we're open to suggestions.

Graphically, I have very mixed feelings about this. I like the blue colour scheme and the industrial look. They look nice. But at the same time it kinda makes everything blend together so it's a bit hard to find anything on the map... I realize this is just a first draft, but I thought this would give you something to work on when you advance to later forums.

Keep in mind this is a starting points map with no bonuses given for countries as such. But I see your point and hopefully there will be a way to tone down the blueness of the land and emphasise the colored contours.

Another criticism is, that the insets are a bit hard to place on the map - at least for those who don't know the geography. When you use insets, they should be used so that you can easily see which part of the map the inset represents, and this is going to need some work.

I am always amazed at claims that people playing these maps don't know geography. The vast majority do - and those who don't when they join learn vert quickly given the range of maps here. Be it as it may, if this becomes a serious concern - which I doubt, looking at many other similar inserts in other maps-, we'll find a way to place an idicator to correlate the map area with the corresponding insert.

Thanks for your positive feedback and constructive suggestions. Look forward to more as the work progresses.

In anticipation of gameplay questions, here is a map showing my preliminary view of the neutrals situation at the start of the game.

Notes: Lvov would be a metropolis, and Astana would be Kazakhstan's capital, with a +2/+3 autodeploy.

None of this is settled, just my view of how the game would balance out. Comments from all welcome.

I'd also like comments on the pipelines. Do they add to the game strategy? Are they too much? I personally like them, but I think this is an aspect where constructive feedback would be very helpful from the very beginning.

There is no way that small map will ever pass through the graphics workshop.

Here is what I suggest: Reduce the territories. You have near 100 territories which is way too much for the gameplay complexity you're going for, I'd highly recommend no more than 60. Get rid of the cities and perhaps keep the capitals. Lose the tankers as you just don't have room.Drastically reduce the number of refineries. For example those three in North China? Merge to just one territory with 1 refinery. If you reduce the number of refineries, perhaps you can keep the pipline.

The graphics are quite neat and they defintiely capture the feel. But the gameplay needs some serious streamlining.

Thanks Helix. We obviously need to take a close look and make some decisions, but there is a difference between stramlining this and making it into a totally different map. Since we are talking about gameplay and you like the graphics in principle, can we move on from the idea stage to the gameplay stage please?

Move to the gameplay workshop? Not just yet. The key purpose of the melting pot is to screen map ideas to prevent something from going through that doesn't a) come close to meeting CC standards or b) has major issues that will clog up the maps progress in the other workshops (like the small map in Napoleonic Europe should have been addressed here before a gameplay was committed to).

The idea is to pass a map that looks like it isn't going to have major graphical or gameplay issues in the future. When I look at the small map of this, I see a future Napoleonic Europe crisis in the making. I also see problems with the fact that as a complex map it is going to have less support than maps usually do (though this doesn't necessarily stop them). In the melting pot an idea is not committed to a map and a different map does not mean a different idea.

I highly advise that you don't get too attached to this map in its current iteration. I think a reduction of territories is key to making this map work and there is going to have to be another version of this map to progress.

The reviewers will make make suggestions and recommendations for the development of the map idea, with successful design concepts being moved into the Gameplay Workshop.

It frankly makes no differnce to me on which thread of this forum this proposal is located. But, if we are to follow the Guidelines, we should be consistent in our approach.

What is a successful design concept? Clearly not an almost entirely completed map and gameplay, which only need relatively minor changes in Gameplay and Graphics. Otherwise, the role of the Gameplay and Graphics sections almost lose their relevenace - especially considering there is an Iron Forge after them to clean everything up before going to Beta.

A successful design concept is, no doubt, a map proposal with a detailed layout of the map. territories, objectives, bonuses, where the gameplay is clear and the graphics show promise.AS you saidm you like the direction of this map's graphics. As to the gameplay, even if we simplify some elements (tankers, pipelines, territories) the actual gameplay won't change drastically: we still will have 8 starting points, and a struggle to control refineries, terrorists, and Central Asia. THAT is the successful design concept.

So, unless you object to the actual design concept, this map should move to Gameplay. There, we can look specifically at Gameplay and make any alterations we deem necessary in that area.

In short, to cram 80 per cent of the work in this section and call it design concept really is not in accordance with the guidelines. Let's move on to Gameplay, focus on that, stramline what needs to be streamlined there, and then go to graphics and do the same there.

Serious mapmakers will not put significant more time and effort in developing maps if they are asked to put over 50 hours of work in a design concept which, despite its obvious quality and interest, is refused progress to the next stage on the ground that it's not almost perfect.

Please note I am taking all your comments as constructive criticism and attempting to accomodate them - but this goes both ways: unless your advice is seen by us as objective and in accordance with the Guidelines, we just won't keep going wasting our time in a process which does not follow its own Guidelines, but can have as many different interpretations as there are members in the cartography department.

Pamoa wrote:Does that mean I should throw away a 50 hours job and start something new?

This is a reason why you should not put too much work in a first draft. The idea of the foundry as I see it is not that you work 50 hours on a map, then put it up and expect that it will glide through the forums since "you have worked on it so much already"... it's more that you post an idea, people get to give it feedback, and you start working on the idea based on the feedback, advancing the map bit by bit...

No, I'm saying start over. But the map as it stands is very complicated and the small map isn't going to make it through the graphics workshop. I'm saying reduce territories first of all. And second of all refine the gameplay to something manageable as not all of us have BOB.

The concept is great, I like the graphics, but the gameplay is too complicated and overcrowded. Don't throw it away, but I can't move it to gameplay like this.

The concept is great, I like the graphics, but the gameplay is too complicated and overcrowded. Don't throw it away, but I can't move it to gameplay like this.

Am I the only one who thinks this is self-contradictory? You say you like the design concept, but gameplay needs substantial work. Yet you won't move the thread into Gameplay, where the gameplay work is done, because the gameplay is not yet almost perfect? Wwell that's exactly what we are supposed to do in Gameplay! It's not the Gameplay STAMP I'm asking for - just approval of the design concept and permission to move into Gameplay where we can focus exactly on the issues you raise:

Gameplay Development Guidelines

The development of solid, balanced gameplay is one of the first challenges of map development. In order to meet gameplay expectations and make your map successful, you will need to incorporate the following elements:

Balanced deployment - It should be unlikely that one or more players can start the game with a major advantage as a result of the initial drop or getting the first turn. Conquer Club is primarily a strategy game, and we therefore like to minimise as many of the luck factors as possible - the dice are randomness enough!

Reasonable bonus structure - Bonuses should make sense given the size/style of the map, and be based on a consistent formula. Consideration should be given to balancing the strength of the board, ensuring that no specific area of the map gives an overwhelming advantage from the start of a game.

Game type flexibility - The map should support various game types and not be designed with specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2 players, etc.). Maps designed for fewer than 8-players should be discouraged, and will only be approved if the map is really something special.

Player-friendliness - Any information you need to know to play a map should be easy to gather by looking at the map itself. The legend should be clear, concise and consistent; the map itself should be free of unnecessary or cumbersome rules that push it over the line separating complex from confusing.

Open-play - There should be many ways a game might progress on a map, and many roads to victory. Such features as unpassable borders should enhance, not limit, gameplay, and every effort should be made to limit the number of dead ends and bottlenecks in a map, unless they are justified by the desired play of the map. The map should be fun to play, not frustrating.

Function trumps form - The style of the graphics should not detract from ease of play: borders should be clear, titles and numbers easy to read, colors easy to distinguish, etc...

Form must follow function - So important it's on the list twice! Expect to show some flexibility and be prepared to move away from complete geographical accuracy or historical authenticity: the look and theme of the map must be utterly subservient to gameplay and legibility.

Please, let's just follow the Guidelines and work on the actual map rather than quibbling about threads and playing power games. It would make the creative process so much easier and more fun...

natty_dread wrote:Well. At first sight this looks interesting. I would recommend doing a draft of the small version with 888:s to ensure everything will fit properly. You don't want to run into the same problems you had with the napoleon map...

natty_dread wrote:

Pamoa wrote:Does that mean I should throw away a 50 hours job and start something new?

This is a reason why you should not put too much work in a first draft. The idea of the foundry as I see it is not that you work 50 hours on a map, then put it up and expect that it will glide through the forums since "you have worked on it so much already"... it's more that you post an idea, people get to give it feedback, and you start working on the idea based on the feedback, advancing the map bit by bit...

Well it is not possible to do it half wayeither you make a draft as you saw it before or you make the mapmaking an accurate hand draft is 10 to 20 hoursbut then throwing it away to start the real map isn't a very efficient way of working

Per your PM I'm responding with a little input. It's clear that a lot of work has been done on this map, but it's very hard to look at without some major changes in the color scheme.The game idea is good; gameplay will need some work - objective seems a little complicated;I messed with the colors a little - pretty much just inverted them. The ocean would, of course be blue or maybe white, but I suggest you play around with the territories and try something other than the blue for them; also, it doesn't read very easily - you may want to address that as well. Maybe try more suitable fonts, etc. Kandahar and Islmabad should be in one word, not split to 2 lines.Is topography really needed and does it benefit the map in any way? Maybe just solid colored territories would be better.The location of the insets should be easier to find - maybe color-coordinated. Having so many territories seems like a stretch for geographical correctness, but I think it also clutters the map to an extent. -Maybe a compromise involving fewer territories would be better.All-in-all, I'd say this is an "okay" map, but in its current draft not one that would turn many heads. Good luck.